Major Political and Security Earthquake - French Newspapers: Hamas Attack on Israel Shuffles the Conflict Cards Again

 Major Political and Security Earthquake - French Newspapers: Hamas Attack on Israel Shuffles the Conflict Cards Again

Major Political and Security Earthquake - French Newspapers: Hamas Attack on Israel Shuffles the Conflict Cards Again

Major French newspapers have discussed what they described as an unprecedented attack launched by the Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, from the Gaza Strip against Israel. They differ in their perspectives on the attack, with Le Monde suggesting that it aims to reshuffle the cards in the conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Le Figaro speculated that it could thwart the desired reshaping of the Middle East, while L'Obs focused on drawing initial lessons from it, and Liberation titled it as the latest deadly surprise in an endless conflict.

Le Monde, in an article by its veteran correspondent Benjamin Barthe, started by noting that the timing chosen by Hamas for attacking Israel was not coincidental. It harkens back to the Arab imagination through Hamas forces breaching the fortified fence surrounding the Gaza Strip, reminiscent of the Egyptian forces crossing the heavily fortified Bar Lev Line 50 years ago. That event had shifted the balance of power in the Israeli-Arab conflict and had been a shock to the Israeli psyche.

While it is premature to predict the exact consequences of this new conflict, according to the writer, the scale of the attack carried out by Hamas is not at all in line with the operations it has undertaken since 2007. This suggests that the Middle East is experiencing a new political and security earthquake, and Israel's setback, as in 1973, is characterized by symbolic brutality that is hard to believe.

The writer believes that the Israeli political and security establishment is paralyzed, as if it were in a state of shock throughout the morning. This reflects a resounding failure, especially since Israeli intelligence agencies did not anticipate anything despite an attack of this magnitude requiring months of preparation. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who presents himself as the protector of Israel and its security, will undoubtedly give a personal response to this catastrophe, and he will be held accountable after the initial shock and the unity that should prevail for a few days.

Le Monde concludes that the new war in Gaza will have regional repercussions and could be a direct blow to Israeli-Arab normalization efforts, as the images of Gaza being bombed suggest stirring public opinion in the Arab world and attacking its leaders, especially those who have established relations with Israel. Hence, Hamas's message to the countries of the region and Western embassies is clear: there can be no stability in the Middle East without Palestine.

The writer also points out that the "bloodshed" carried out by Palestinian fighters in the outskirts of Gaza they entered will stigmatize the Islamic movement again as "terrorist." The writer expects that the Palestinian cause will not emerge victorious in the Western public opinion from this battle, but a considerable number of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the diaspora will feel solidarity with Hamas after 30 years since the Oslo Accords, as Jewish settlement in the West Bank reached a point of no return, and extremists in the Israeli government offered them nothing but submission, imprisonment, or death.

In the same context, Le Figaro sees this unprecedented attack as potentially thwarting the desired reshaping of the Middle East. However, it focuses on the extensions of what the attack could lead to in the conflict. It notes that the Lebanese Hezbollah congratulated Hamas on its "broad heroic operation," indicating that the leadership of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon is in direct contact with the Palestinian resistance leadership inside and outside Palestine, continuously assessing events and the progress of operations.

The newspaper wonders if this means that the "Iranian-aligned militia has an interest in opening a front against northern Israel?" and responds that perhaps not, as Hezbollah, which recently signed an agreement to share gas reserves in the Mediterranean Sea with Israel, has not decided to launch simultaneous attacks against the Jewish state. However, there is no doubt about cooperation between Hezbollah and Hamas.

Nonetheless, the newspaper believes that Iran has an interest in the outbreak of "Israeli-Palestinian violence" for a simple reason that it does not hide. Iran sees with great concern the ongoing rapprochement between its new ally, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. It has warned that those who make agreements with Israel are "betting on the wrong horse."

As for L'Obs, it describes the situation in Israel as the deadliest since the October 1973 war, stating that Israel is in a state of shock and dismay in the face of this "terrorist" attack. It suggests that Israel is preparing for a long war and possibly a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip, as envisioned by researcher David Khalfa.

Hassan Abouyoub, professor of political science and director of the Center for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World in Geneva, believes that this attack will weaken and marginalize the Palestinian Authority, as a new generation of Palestinians is determined to take their fate into their own hands. They face an Israeli government dominated by extreme religious right-wing and an international community resigned to it.

On the other hand, Liberation sees Hamas's massive attack on Israel as the latest deadly surprise in an endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It links it to the October war, which it sees as a powerful symbol fueling fear of a new cycle of "terrifying violence," and suggests that Hamas's attack will put Israelis in the same psychological state.

In conclusion, the newspaper argues that this is a deadly episode that is unnecessary in a conflict fueled by conflicting historical narratives, nurtured over the years by two deeply antagonistic communities. There are few commonalities between them except for a deep sense of historical injustice and harm.

Israel believed that the withdrawal of all its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005 after 38 years of occupation would put an end to its problems with the 1.6 million Palestinians there. Even though it viewed the continuous rocket launches from Gaza since Hamas ruled the enclave as angry acts that occasionally warranted violent retaliation, it was mostly tolerated as a symptom of an illness best left unexposed.

The writer believes that the residents of Gaza's sense of victimhood is directly related to the dire living conditions in the crowded, besieged, and impoverished coastal strip, which is only a few kilometers wide. While the Israeli soldiers and settlers have left, Israel continues to block its borders with Gaza, control its coastline due to fears of weapon imports, and dominate its airspace. This means that Gaza is still "occupied" in practice, and thus, "resistance" retains its legitimacy.

The geopolitical changes witnessed in recent months present Hamas and its "Iranian sponsors," according to the writer, with an indefensible possibility. This threatens to give birth to a "new Middle East," leaving Iran without legitimacy in the Arab world that abandons the Palestinian people. Hamas may have succeeded in its gamble and slowed down this progress, embarrassing Israel's new allies and increasing the resilience of both Israelis and Palestinians in the conflict.

Source: Le Point + Le Figaro + Le Monde + Liberation